Let's phrase the question differently, then.

If you agree that universal coverage is a Good Thing and you don't trust your government to manage it effectively, who would you propose should be in control? We seem to be in agreement that the current American system is broken; if we take that as given, then the logical conclusion is that leaving for-profit insurance companies in charge of delivering healthcare to the general population is not the right answer. We either go public or private here, and simply saying that neither one is good enough doesn't provide a solution.

What's your answer?

In other news a white guy steals and then rips up a poster of Rosa Parks at a town hall meeting.....


Why? This lady should press charges for theft and destruction of property.

The link I got to was not the actual report, I could not find a free copy. Have you seen one. How do you know what "health care services" includes?

O.k., lets see how can I explain some of the problems with coming to a conclusion for health care based on % of GDP. Let's say you have a farm and I have a farm. I produce 100 whatevers and you produce 25 whatevers, our GDP. We both use horses I spend 20% of my GDP on medical expenses for my horses, you spend 10% on your horses. You spend 2.5 I spend 20. Your horses live longer than my horses, etc, etc. If your horses break a leg or if they have a problem, they get a bullet in the head and a nice burial. Your horses don't tend to complain about broken legs or other problems because they know the drill. My horses get first class treatment and if they can't work they go out to stud. They die early trying to have as much sex as possible with the young fillies. Would you rather be a horse on my farm or yours?

Liberal propaganda reporting on conservative propaganda.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/...s-before-care/

Each individual should be in control of their own choices. If everyone has access to a basic or base plan, either private or public, and then access to supplemental coverage or additional coverage in a competitive market - that may be the best solution. I am open to many possibilities, I just wish proponents of certain plans would be honest about what the consequences are. The dishonesty is cause for the distrust.



The system needs fixing, I am not sure it is broken. Just like with a finely tuned automobile, you take it to the track - you make adjustments to get it to run better - but you don't scrap it if you need a different set of tires. With health care there is no "right" answer, only the answer we choose. I do personally think it is wrong that children live in this country without access to health care.

The town hall meetings on health care have turned into a forum for some miss-informed people to vent their anger about what they perceive as government death panels and the like. Like Palin said the government death panels may decide to kill grandparents and mentally challanged children. People get real exited by these statements. It is almost impossible to have a dialogue with people screaming at you for wanting to kill their loved ones.

It would be good for the country if Republicans would ratchet down the fighting rhetoric and instead focus on their alternative reforms. I believe they may be right about a government alternative eventually taking over the majority of health care. I don't think this is such a bad thing but the Democrats won't openly say so for political reasons.

I believe that staying the course in health care will be a disaster and may bankrupt many people and maybe even the government in a few years. I hear Hannity, Beck and others talk about how adding 50 million people will cause doctor shortages and I wonder just what do they think should be done with them and the thousands becoming uninsured every week.

At the present rate even those of us with insurance will not be able to afford it much longer.

And, why did they escort the black lady out? This is not good. Leaders in Washington need to go back to Washington and re-group and come back with real answers. This is getting out of control. The information vacuum is real.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------

I wish we could stop pretending these concerns are not real. Stop pretending that Rush Limbaugh or Palin are the cause of this hostility. The anger, distrust, hostility, fear, etc.,etc, is out there, you can not just flip a switch to make it stop. It is time for leadership.

I have no doubt that the anger is real. The same could be said about the birthers who interrupt town hall meetings. I believe there are a lot of people who will not accept the fact that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama can be trusted much less be elected president. No amount of leadership is going to win them over. What can one do to convince unrully people to stop yelling and allow a civil town hall discussion to take place?

I agree they have to do with the health care system in the US. Which is the what the town hall meetings and this thread are about.

If health insurance companies, big pharma et el hadn't spent the better part of the last three decades buying off elected officials and convincing people that national health care is evil and socialism then these folks would have likely been covered. Had they been covered they likely would have received care. To say these events are solely the responsibility of hospitals is clearly not looking at the big picture.

During the day I usually have MSNBC on during the day so that I can hear it while I work or do this. This is a perfect example of what is fanning the hostility. People are getting dog tired of being told that if they disagree with an Obama plan they are either a racist, a dumb right winger following the dictates of Rush, dishonest, or simply the enemy of our great leader. I know what is like to be constantly personally attacked for being conservative from participating on this political forum, my response is usually to use humor or sarcasm, I have thick skin - most people don't.

They could listen. They could stop with the smirks as they dismiss legitimate concerns. They could stop lumping every conservative in the same group, just because a few are in the birther movement doesn't mean everyone is.

Go back to Washington, come up with a plan, and then communicate it to the American people. Currently there is no "the bill" that everyone refers too, how can they say what is not in something that does not exist?

this is false.
there's a ton of data available that demonstrates the opposite--the organization of hospitals--and treatments--are profoundly influenced by the insurance regime they work inside of. not in *every* way of course, but in many ways, particularly in the degrees of bureaucracy and, more importantly, it's orientation. see the post on the previous page i made.

Yeah Rush and Palin aren't at all responsible. They just tell their followers stuff like Obama's just like the Nazis and he wants to create death panels. That's type of stuff wouldn't incited the seeds of hate, right?

I do agree once you yell fire in a crowded theater you can't just flip a switch and make it stop.

Again I agree that the system is flawed. These Hospitals that are refusing care to people are breaking the law plain and simple. No one can be turned away. Primary Care Physicians is a different story and needs to be addressed admittedly.

What worries me the most is that if there is nationalized health care, I might loose my job. I don't want to loose my job, so, I am hoping for a hybrid system. I've already lost three Accounts this week because of all the uncertainty with the Reform proposals. Company decision makers are reluctant to move forward with new plans until the issue is resolved, which is leaving me standing there shaking my head. I don't even sell health insurance, I sell supplemental insurance, mainly Income Protection(short term disability).

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------



I do agree that hospital and insurance companies but heads, but the fact of the matter is these hospitals broke the law when they refused treatment to patients. Every hospital in the country has signs posted "patients bill of rights" one such right is the right to treatment regardless of insurance. Yes if you don't have insurance you will be billed, and you most likely can't afford the bill, but the issue in question is that the hospitals refused treatment not the insurance company

I thought Pelosi was the first to refer to people at these town hall meetings as people carrying signs with swastikas. And even if Rush and Palin are fanning hate, why assume they are responsible for the expression coming from these meetings. Again, you illustrate a dismissive attitude and insult honest people who have real concerns. This is about the 5th or 6th time I have made this point. I am not shouting, but at some point even I would get so frustrated that I would feel the need to scream, why don't you listen?


Perhaps there is a lesson for Obama and members of Congress? Care to share what you think they might want to take from our current situation regarding the health care debate, or it all some one else's problem?

Because the police didn't know what happened. They saw a conflict and removed both people involved. In the end they released the black lady and arrested the white guy and is now under investigation for aggravated assault. The police did exactly as they should in such a situation. Remove those involved to prevent escalation and figure out what happened afterword.

I think that is one of the reasons for town hall discussions. Why so much anger, distrust, hostility, fear, etc.,etc over a bill that does not yet exist instead of discussing what one thinks should be in the final bill? I have watched a few town halls and congress persons trying to assure those yelling that they are there to discuss health care reform only to be shouted down and unable to discuss anything.

At this point I think Obama needs to make a national address. Try to present his arguments, and try to calm some of the people down that are ruining these town meetings.

You are still assuming that the only ones riled, angered, and interrupting are racists who wouldn't follow Obama anywhere. why?

I saw the tape here and I saw it on MSNBC. It is funny how a "news" organization did not present the facts. Perhaps they need to take some responsibility for fanning flames as much as they accuse Rush of doing it. I would not even know what Rush says if not for liberal talk and news shows.

What good would that do? The people who he would be targeting are fox news viewers. Fox news has already chosen not to air many of Obama's speeches and i'm sure they would do the same with this one.

The greatest irony is that one time instead of airing Obama they aired a program called "Lie to me".

---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------


Oh I agree, the MSM really dropped the ball on this one. They chose to create hyperbola instead of present facts. Hell I just read today that CNBC is helping organize protests so they can then report on it.

I am not assumimg that they are the only ones, just a lot of them. I formed my opinion like most of us do, from talking with friends and family and observing the rhetoric from the rallies during the presidential campaign. I am probably also influenced by the people around me here in Appalachia. It seems to me that there has to be more behind those interrupting any discussion at these meetings as if they just want to shut it down and not allow anyone else to voice an opinion. I suspect many of the same people are involved with the birthers and tea parties.

i don't think that's correct either, rahl. the relation betwee hospital bureaucracies that interface with insurance companies and the companies is really a matter of administrative cultures, which compartmentalize (separate cause and effect, for example)...so formally everyone might say that patients are not being refused treatment, while in reality the consequence of the administrative culture (and forms) prevents patients from getting treatment. does anyone say "fuck off, you..."? no: is the effect any different from that? materially no. formally of course yes, because, well, no-one said "fuck off" to anyone.

what constitutes the breaking of such a law, really? an explicit action undertaken by particular agents. an entire administrative apparatus that has the same effect even as the administrators can tell themselves it doesn't---is that a breaking of the law? depends on the politics of the situation, doesn't it? if you have advocacy groups, for example, that can break through the layer on layer of heavily funded corporate pr that passes for information, maybe. but they have to break through it, and then redefine the terms of debate.

as it turns out, that's happening anyway, but with a different adversary for these corporate interests to deal with.

it's an interesting battle from that viewpoint.
then you get to how it's being fought out, and it goes back to being depressing as hell again.

First time I heard the Nazi comparison was August 6 when Rush said "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" Then he went on to say stuff like Obama's logo looks like a Nazi symbol and other Nazi comparisons. Then a couple days ago Pelosi pointed out that people were showing up to these town halls with swastikas... because people were showing up with swastikas.

So Rush and Palin say untrue things, like the death panel comment, and it's completely unreasonable for me to think that at least some of these people are reacting to the hate speech and lies spread by these two?

I have no problem with people who have honest concerns, I'm not sure how pointing out these facts insult them. But if your honest concern comes from bull shit information...




The current debate really hasn't even been a debate. Anytime someone tries to discuss this issues people starting screaming the talking points that have been put out by the right. Several think tanks and lobbying groups have put out bullet point on how to disrupt the town halls. "Make sure you get there early so you can sit up front, make lots of noise, yell if you have to be heard etc..." That's not a debate, that's a bunch of adults acting like children.

I think the strategy is to disrupt and cause chaos so nothing gets passed, that's their goal... maintain the status quo.

No, I don't think it's someone else's problem. I do think having a logical, honest and mature debate would be a good start in resolving this issue. Personally with rising co-pays and premiums I don't think the status quo is a viable option. Then only real benefactor is the health care industry.

I will concede your point. my point was specifically in the video of the woman dieing in the psyche ward waiting room, the hospital staff blew it. There wasn't some insurance ceo standing in her way of getting care

it's good we agree on something, rahl.
and you're right, there wasn't an insurance ceo standing there.
maybe this is one of the problem with this debate as a whole: there isn't even agreement on where to look to start thinking about the problems that exist, even at the level of how they're framed in the press--which is itself a Problem, a serious Problem.

in my view, if you want to see just how badly served we are by the dominant media, look around. we're seeing it.

Glad we do too:thumbsup: I think you just summed up why this reform can't be rushed. If nobody can pinpoint the exact problems, how can we hope to fix it. This is why most people are pissed about the bailouts. Everyone panicked, didn't understand the problems fully, and bam we throw a bunch of money at it with both eyes closed hoping it sticks.

Holy crap. You do realize that the issue you have portrayed has nothing to do with using GDP as a weight in comparisons, right?

You do realize that, considering that the US has the largest GDP in the world, and one of the largest GDP per capita in the world, the fact that the US spends more as a share of GDP means that the US spends much more, comparatively, in actual dollars, right?

And you do realize that the table I linked above actually shows that Americans get LESS healthcare, measured in visits, hospital stays, hospital beds, etc. than others who spend much less, right?

And you do realize that not only do other nations get more care, they also have better outcomes, right?

In other words, other than obfuscation, what was the point of this post?

It is true that some opponents of Obama sat down and developed a strategy to disrupt and cause chaos so that nothing gets passed. It is also true that it was easily predictable that some opponents of Obama would sit down and develop a strategy to disrupt and cause chaos so that nothing gets passed.

Is the Obama team that naive to think they would not face some opposition and did not have a plan for it? Could that be a lesson for them?

Could it be the original strategy to rush the bill through back fired and could that be a lesson for them?

Could it be that Obama did not present a specific plan to Congress, and could that be a lesson for them?

Why are liberals and Obama always victims of the "right" or the vast "right wing conspiracy"? Do you folks truly not understand that you are in a political dog fight, or are you guys just using a strategy of trying to get sympathy?

Oh, I don't know maybe because the right does things like shoot doctors and blow up buildings?

hey ace---how about you address dippin's post directly above yours?

As I was witting the analogy, I started thinking the point would be missed.

O.k., I will not use an analogy but ask a question to illustrate a point.

If the US spends a higher percentage of GDP on health care, what are we spending a smaller percentage on?

Compared to some nations are we spending a smaller percentage on, oh lets say - food? Or, how about clothing? What logical conclusion can you draw from that? You can't draw any logical conclusion from making the connections between these variables. You have to dig deeper and really understand what is going on in each nation.

Here is a good one to chew on - we spend a smaller percentage of GDP on food but we are the most obese nation in the world. Does that mean our food is really, really, good.

If life is prolonged based on being in a hospital bed, I would rather live a shorter life outside of the hospital. I would rather chase the young fillies!

No.

The conclusion reached by the World Health Organization is B.S.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

We have police, FBI, CIA, security, etc. - we know there are crazy people in the world and we take proactive measures to reduce the risk of crazy people doing harm to innocent people. When you say the "right" in this context, I assume you really mean violent crazy people and that you don't put people like me in that group, and that you simply consider me to be "crazy".:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

Based on what you know of the report do you think coming to a conclusion from making a correlation between things like percentage of GDP spent on health care and life expectancy is correct?

Notice how hard you have to work to make this point? That might NOT be a function of the density of the people you're talking into. It might instead be an indicator of the stretch that your point is.

ANYHOO

Bottom line for me: liberals protest war, conservatives protest health care. Ok! That's the world we live in, I guess.

when did I start doing that? :rolleyes:

Oh, and these Town Hall Cryers are being presented as the vox populi, while a thousand times more people protested the Iraq War without anywhere NEAR as much news coverage. Say it with me: liberal media my ass!

Ace, as a point of interest I thought you might like to know that with your horse analogy your argument has officially become so ludicrous that, despite my best efforts, I'm incapable of taking it seriously.

I was planning on going for a walk this afternoon. I'd best step carefully -- apparently if I break my ankle, they'll shoot me.

EDIT - Also, I find it interesting that your op-ed piece should be taken as a credible source, while statistics from the international organization whose sole mandate is to monitor and report on the state of healthcare across the globe are bullshit.

If you're swimming in Egypt, what river are you in?

The conclusion you can reach from that is that the US spends a larger proportion of their available money on healthcare. How hard can this be? If you want to know if something is cost-effective, you look at how much it costs, and the outcomes. In the US, for the costliest health care in the world you get something that is far, far from being the best health care in the world. Hence, other nations have much more cost effective systems.



Holy crap, this kind of thing must be a joke, right? You can't really be comparing a matter of taste (food) with healthcare. In this case, the appropriate comparison would be that food production and distribution in the US is more efficient than in other nations.


So you point is that it is a GOOD thing that Americans have poor healthcare? And that having lousy healthcare and dying younger is so much better that you'd be willing to pay more for it? Seriously? I mean, you don't want to just cut healthcare at all in order to die younger, you want to spend a ton more to die younger?


How so? You haven't addressed their conclusions in any way, other than to say that you'd rather die young...

Someone's going to get hurt/killed here soon

I predict this also.

I've thus far refrained from commenting on this four subject thread. But I will comment to say that I absolutely agree with this. At this point, it's almost innevitable. When it does happen, it's going to throw gasoline on flames that have already been fanned out of control.

I think it's incumbent on the majority of conservatives (aka "non-nutbags") to stand up and denounce this noisy-but-fringe bullshit RIGHT NOW.